No slight on Tom, but I completely disagree. The Pats won 11 games without Brady in 2008...and would manage to win 7-10 games without him this year. The truth of the matter is that Bill Polian has done a lousy job of putting a team together in Indy. He has let the Colts grow old...and did not groom a QB to eventually replace the aging Peyton Manning. Let's not forget that the Colts barely won the weak AFC South last year...having to win their last five games in a row to hold off Jacksonville, and finish 10-6.

Looking back, I have no idea how they were able to swindle 11 wins with Cassel...pretty remarkable esp. considering they were in the midst of a stretch of poor drafting. My instinct is to say "they would stink" without Tom, because they don't have many playmakers on defense...But they probably have more talent now than they did in 2008, and they won 11 games. Good question...

Strength of schedules was very easy in 2008. AFC West was pathetic other than SD and they also played the NFC bottom feeders AZ, Sea, SF and St Louis who were horrific. They would have easily had home field through out the playoffs if Brady played that year.

I think the evidence has shown that no Brady = 5 less wins. 16-0 to 11-5 with a nearly identical roster. That's with an easier schedule.
But really it depends on the replacement but the next guy won't be as good. Hope I'm wrong.

Matt Cassell sucked then and he sucks now. The Pats beat exactly one -- ONE -- winning team that year, and that was an Arizona team (which, granted, almost -- really, should have -- won the Super Bowl) that didn't even show up. That said, New England doesn't do anything on offense that requires a pin-point passer. Brady doesn't go deep and he rarely throws any kind of timing route. The Pats take advantage of matchups that dictate primarily underneath stuff, and let's just admit it, this idea that Brady eats blitzes for breakfast simply isn't true. Send Brian Hoyer out there and he could do anything that Brady has done this season.

Now . . . that is not to say that Brady isn't awesome . . . . you're going to want him when Bitchburgh comes in in January . . . but no, the Pats would not be terrible without Brady. They're designed to function in any contingency.

Accordingly to Bob Ryan...yes...though not as bad as the Colts are: http://www.boston.com/sports/video/globe10/?bctid=1304892141001 No slight on Tom, but I completely disagree. The Pats won 11 games without Brady in 2008...and would manage to win 7-10 games without him this year. The truth of the matter is that Bill Polian has done a lousy job of putting a team together in Indy. He has let the Colts grow old...and did not groom a QB to eventually replace the aging Peyton Manning. Let's not forget that the Colts barely won the weak AFC South last year...having to win their last five games in a row to hold off Jacksonville, and finish 10-6. What's you're take on this? Posted by TexasPat3

The problem with the question TP, is that it ignores WHO is playing in his stead.

Is it a competent QB or just trash?

If you replaced Brady with Flacco or a league average QB they would probably win something like 8 games ... if you replaced Brady with Christian Ponder or some terrible QB they would only win one or two.

The Colts' fall ... which I assume is what this thread is really about comparing ... is not about the difference between Manning and a league average QB.

It's about the Colts being a year older and the difference between Manning and a couple guys who shouldn't even be on NFL rosters.

I think the evidence has shown that no Brady = 5 less wins. 16-0 to 11-5 with a nearly identical roster. That's with an easier schedule. But really it depends on the replacement but the next guy won't be as good. Hope I'm wrong.Posted by shenanigan

Depends on the unknown variable of how good or bad Hoyer or Mallett is. P Mike is right Cassell is not that good and has benifitted from a very good running game (especially last year in KC). It would be dangerous to assume that the Pats offensive playcalling stays the same without Brady. IMO the Pats offense would need more from the run game. I, like most, doubt that Hoyer or Mallett can win a game almost all by themselves......like Brady (who at times seems to will his team to win). You can have all the great arm strength in the world, but the intangibles are huge in this league.

I don't much like comparisons to 2008. I'm just gonna say it: Matt Cassell sucked then and he sucks now. The Pats beat exactly one -- ONE -- winning team that year, and that was an Arizona team (which, granted, almost -- really, should have -- won the Super Bowl) that didn't even show up. That said, New England doesn't do anything on offense that requires a pin-point passer. Brady doesn't go deep and he rarely throws any kind of timing route. The Pats take advantage of matchups that dictate primarily underneath stuff, and let's just admit it, this idea that Brady eats blitzes for breakfast simply isn't true. Send Brian Hoyer out there and he could do anything that Brady has done this season. Now . . . that is not to say that Brady isn't awesome . . . . you're going to want him when Bitchburgh comes in in January . . . but no, the Pats would not be terrible without Brady. They're designed to function in any contingency. Look at the defense. That's coaching.Posted by p-mike

Huh?

Brady's stats against the blitz.

62% 1175 yards 10TDs 1 INT 114.3 rating. If he were blitzed on every down he would be the #1 rated passer in the league.

Breakfast? Blitzes are a snack for that guy. I don't know

Drew Brees 60.2% 991 yards 3 TDs 1 INT 89 rating

Ben Burger

58.8% 1171 yards 5TD 2 INT 88.4 rating

Only Rogers is better, at something astronomical like a 142.9 rating.

There is no way to know what Hoyer would do because he hasn't really played in the NFL.

Depends on the unknown variable of how good or bad Hoyer or Mallett is. P Mike is right Cassell is not that good and has benifitted from a very good running game (especially last year in KC). It would be dangerous to assume that the Pats offensive playcalling stays the same without Brady. IMO the Pats offense would need more from the run game. I, like most, doubt that Hoyer or Mallett can win a game almost all by themselves......like Brady (who at times seems to will his team to win). You can have all the great arm strength in the world, but the intangibles are huge in this league.Posted by JohnHannahrulz

+1

It's all about the value over replacement. We can't pretend that all backups are equal ... they aren't ... a lot of teams would like Cassell as a a starter.

In Response to Re: Would the Pats Be Terrible Without Brady? : Christian Ponder is now the apotheosis of terrible QBs? Untold thousands of prairie rubes are not going to be happy to hear this.Posted by p-mike

I just picked a name out of a hat full of QBs with tons of talent around them and no wins or stats to show for it.

The Vikings would be a decent team with a decent QB.

I promise, though, to wait for Spring to send the prairie rubes the memo ... that way they'll be in better spirits ...

With the schedule this year, had Brady gone down in the preseason or game 1, I would say they would go 8-8 with Hoyer at the helm. Those first few games were won due to Brady's ability to throw for 400+ yards in back to back games. They would most likely have lost to the Cowboys as well, and at least one to the Jets.

We generally look for springtime 'round about the end of May, although it has been known to fool us. And thanx for that "talent" comment. You would be amazed at how many people around here actually believe that. But seriously . . . Donovan McNabb??????????Posted by p-mike

You don't think Harvin, Shiancoe and Adrian Peterson are talented?

I certainly do.

Peterson continues to dominate even though everyone and their Grandmother know he is coming at them.

And I understand why they are going with Ponder ... they think he can develop.

In Response to Re: Would the Pats Be Terrible Without Brady? : You don't think Harvin, Shiancoe and Adrian Peterson are talented? I certainly do. Peterson continues to dominate even though everyone and their Grandmother know he is coming at them. And I understand why they are going with Ponder ... they think he can develop. But McNabb handled the offense better, even if he is a dead end. Posted by zbellino

Well . . . now there you go . . .

You've fallen directly into the trap.

Sure . . . those guys are great . . . but football is played at the line of scrimmage. Jared Allen can do what he does all by himself, and look good while the team looks bad, and he certainly does that. But Christian Ponder and Adrian Peterson and that other guy who smokes all the weed can't do what they do unless they have pathways . . . and they don't.

The O-Line stinks, there are no receivers and the defense is a revolving door.

With the schedule this year, had Brady gone down in the preseason or game 1, I would say they would go 8-8 with Hoyer at the helm. Those first few games were won due to Brady's ability to throw for 400+ yards in back to back games. They would most likely have lost to the Cowboys as well, and at least one to the Jets.Posted by FishTaco64

You can't know for sure. But I would say ...

The Chargers game, the Dolphins game, the Eagles game, the Cowboys game, and the second Jests game when they ran hurry up all night, would all be "L's" with Hoyer pulling the trigger.

There is no way Hoyer steps in and throws the way Brady did against those defenses.

Right now you are looking at a 3-8 with Hoyer. After the schedule finishes out, they would likely go 6-10 with Hoyer.

In Response to Re: Would the Pats Be Terrible Without Brady? : Well . . . now there you go . . . You've fallen directly into the trap. Sure . . . those guys are great . . . but football is played at the line of scrimmage. Jared Allen can do what he does all by himself, and look good while the team looks bad, and he certainly does that. But Christian Ponder and Adrian Peterson and that other guy who smokes all the weed can't do what they do unless they have pathways . . . and they don't. The O-Line stinks, there are no receivers and the defense is a revolving door. Talent? You know who was "talented"? Jim Plunkett. Remember him?Posted by p-mike

Jim was talented.

The question is ... how much would a good QB help that team?

And from what I've seen from Ponder ... he isn't doing his line any favors.

In Response to Would the Pats Be Terrible Without Brady? : The problem with the question TP, is that it ignores WHO is playing in his stead. Is it a competent QB or just trash? If you replaced Brady with Flacco or a league average QB they would probably win something like 8 games ... if you replaced Brady with Christian Ponder or some terrible QB they would only win one or two. The Colts' fall ... which I assume is what this thread is really about comparing ... is not about the difference between Manning and a league average QB. It's about the Colts being a year older and the difference between Manning and a couple guys who shouldn't even be on NFL rosters. Posted by zbellino

Replace him with Hoyer. How do you think the Pats would have done this season if Hoyer played the entire season?

Ponder is doing what young QBs who don't yet know how to read do . . . he's tucking it and running it and there is a segment of the fanbase that think's that's perfectly okay. Now . . . I'm not really a Vikings fan, and therefore do not care, so I consider myself reasonably objective and don't really think Ponder is the problem. He's just as much of a rookie as Blaine Gabbert and Jake Locker and that red-headed kid over there in Cincinnatti (whose name I obviously don't remember) and Cam Newton and . . .

well . . . I guess that's all of them . . .

But the larger point is that if you put Tom Brady or Drew Brees or Aaron Rodgers on the Vikings, they would still have Michael Jenkins as their #1 receiver, and even if Percy Harvin was Wes Welker (and he's not), he's easily game-planned because the Vikes don't have anywhere else to go . . . and yes, I'll reitereate, as a pure runner, there probably isn't anyone better than Adrian Peterson (who's hurt, by the way), but in case you haven't noticed, the pure runner is not very necessary in today's NFL.

In short, and as a prairire resident (although not a Vikings fan as such), there's not a quarterback anywhere you could put on this team to make them better.

Accordingly to Bob Ryan...yes...though not as bad as the Colts are: http://www.boston.com/sports/video/globe10/?bctid=1304892141001 No slight on Tom, but I completely disagree. The Pats won 11 games without Brady in 2008...and would manage to win 7-10 games without him this year. The truth of the matter is that Bill Polian has done a lousy job of putting a team together in Indy. He has let the Colts grow old...and did not groom a QB to eventually replace the aging Peyton Manning. Let's not forget that the Colts barely won the weak AFC South last year...having to win their last five games in a row to hold off Jacksonville, and finish 10-6. What's you're take on this? Posted by TexasPat3